“tangible material”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1472,812 judgments

The decision most relied on for tangible material is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on tangible material

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court

1,673

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court

1,030

citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.

256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court

439

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.

354 ITR 536 · 2013 · High Court

366

citing judgments

Reassessment of income, especially after a summary assessment under Section 143(1), requires the Assessing Officer to possess fresh, tangible material to form a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment; a mere reappraisal of existing records or a change of opinion without new material is not permissible.

222 Taxman 15 (Gujarat)(MAG.), Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. G & G Pharma India Ltd.

384 ITR 147 · 2016 · High Court

274

citing judgments

An assessment can be reopened if there is tangible material indicating escapement of income, demonstrating a live link between the material and the reasons recorded for reopening. The Assessing Officer must apply their mind to the material facts, and the sanction under section 151 should not be based on borrowed satisfaction.

PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.

396 ITR 5 · 2017 · High Court

272

citing judgments

Reassessment based solely on information from the Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer conducting further inquiry or demonstrating an independent application of mind, is unjustified and invalid.

CIT v. Foramer France

264 ITR 566 · 2003 · Supreme Court

253

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year are invalid unless the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Without such failure, the notice issued under Section 148 is time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT

308 ITR 38 · 2009 · High Court

248

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the reasons recorded for initiating action under section 148 are not served on the assessee within the limitation period prescribed by section 149. Furthermore, reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without tangible material, particularly when the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

Judgments citing tangible material

Pragaram Devasi, Bhosari, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1) Pune, Akurdi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1048/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

along with corroborative evidences. The arguments advanced by the appellant in his statement of facts and ground of appeal are also not supported by tangible materials. 6.5 The appellant's contentions are not acceptable in the absence of written submission to substantiate its contentions made in the grounds of appeal ... first appellate order was also passed ex-parte since according to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee failed to furnish 6 any supporting tangible material in support of grounds of appeal and statement of facts. However, we find that the assessee complied to the last notice issued

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Usha Devi Singhania, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 270/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.269 & 270/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

Jurisdictional High Court had held as follows: “6…………. For issuance of notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, there should be tangible material and mandatory compliance of Section 147 of I.T. Act. Proceedings of reassessment has been initiated against company after lapse of 4 years of submission of return

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Usha Devi Singhania, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 269/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

The DCIT Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Kangad, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

ITA 321/RJT/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.11 To 20/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2011-12 To 2020-21 बनाम/ Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Deputy Commissioner Of Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs. Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Adepk 3471 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.21 To 23/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:2014-15, 2016-17 &2017-18 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Tax, Central Circle-1, “Amruta Kangad Vs. Estate”, 2Nd Floor, M.G. Road, Bbz-S-60, Zanda Chowk, Rajkot-360001 Gandhidham-370 201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aabca 8202 E (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./It(Ss)A Nos.15/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Hetab Shamjibhai Kangad Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bbz-South-60, Zanda Chowk, Vs. “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Floor, Gandhidham-370 201 M.G. Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aqtpk 7484 M (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 153A

153A for a period beyond six years, there should be undisclosed income and it should be represented in the form of assets based on tangible materials, in excess of Rs. 50 lacs. On this basis, assessee had claimed that since no tangible evidences and assessee's investment in tangible asset

Shri Shamjibhai Sadhabhai Kangad, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. The DCIT Central Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue, in IT(SS) No

ITA 320/RJT/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 153A

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

order to invoke provisions of section 147, there should be income which has escaped assessment, and such escapement should be based on fresh tangible material which comes to the possession of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the completion of the original assessment and further, the formation of belief of escapement ... income should have a live nexus with reasons to believe and fresh tangible material. Similarly, the provisions of section 153A deal with assessment in case of search or requisition, and as per the said provisions, notwithstanding anything contained in certain provisions of the Act, in case of a person where

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 268/COCH/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly

ITA 267/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

Incme Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal vs. Swarna Sukh, Bhopal

ITA 691/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

during the period of demonetization and since assessee is in the business of jewellery it becomes incumbent upon them to justify the sales by tangible material by bringing the same on record as law contemplates that exercise only. Since law contemplates such an exercise to be done by the assessee

Niramala Vijay and Priya Darekar Foundation, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 893/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.893/Pun/2025 Nirmala Vijay & Priya Darekar Foundation, Cit Exemption, Pune Ground Floor/1St Floor, Plot No. 7, Hadapsar S.O., Pune-411028 Vs. Pan : Aadtn5633P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 Date Of 31-07-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.09.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)”] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him On 09.03.2024 In Form No. 10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of Section 12A(1)(Ac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

beneficiaries, how they were identified, etc. (ii) Furnish the supporting credible evidences in respect with the activities carried out. In absence of any such tangible material in respect of proof of activities being carried out it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion about the genuineness of activities

Ashirwad Seva Samiti, Nashik vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 106/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev MuthaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(3)Section 36ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

Further, the supporting evidence of the activities in the form bills and photographs are also not submitted by you. In absence of any such tangible material in respect of details and proof of activities being carried out, it is not possible to ascertain as to whether the activities are charitable

Jamtaram Viraram Purohit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3561/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 115BSection 148Section 68

notice u/s 148 is bad in law, since had been issued in mechanical manner, on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and in absence of tangible material, without reason to believe of escapement of income; 4.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) ought

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Capital Limited (Successor to Tata Cleantech Capital Limited), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3456/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viii)Section 80Section 80I

Assessee submitted that there should be a legitimate ‘reason to believe’ that income has escaped assessment, based on some new tangible material on record which has come to the notice of Ld. Assessing Officer. Reopening should not be on account of ‘mere change of opinion’. It was submitted that provisions ... find that Ld. Assessing Officer in the course of original assessment has elaborately dealt with the issue. Further, there is no new tangible material which has come to the fore for taking up reassessment proceedings. Ld. AO has noted about the claim of deduction in the reasons to believe

Msg All Trading International Private Limited, East Azad Nagar vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3195/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Msg All Trading International Vs Dcit, Pvt.Ltd., Office No.2, 3Rd Floor, Circle-11(1), 80, East Azad Nagar, Delhi Raghuvarpura, Shahdara, Delhi-110051. Pan-Aajcm6792K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Shri Aman Garg, Ca & Ms. Ishika Dua, Ca Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

HIGH COURT ➤ NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Supreme Court Reasons recorded are vague and are not based on any tangible material 12. In this regard, it is submitted that it can be observed from reason recorded that there is no nexus between the reasons recorded ... tangible material, if any on the basis which Ld.AO has formed his belief. The reasons recorded for reopening of assessment proceedings are vague and merely based on suspicion. 13. It is further submitted that in the reason recorded Ld.AO observed that assessee has failed to disclose the source of acquiring/construction

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Gupte Samadhi Vishvasta Mandal, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 918/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.918/Pun/2025 Shri Gajanan Maharaj Gupte Cit (Exemptions), Pune Samadhi Vishvasta Mandal, House No. 669, Rahalkar Wada, Vs. Raviwar Peth Raviwar Karanja, Nashik-422001 Pan : Aadts2109R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date Of 30-07-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Gunj Foundation, Nashik vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 914/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.914/Pun/2025 Gunj Foundation, Cit (Exemptions), Pune House No. 247, Block No. 56, Upnagar Colony, Nashik-422006 Vs. Pan : Aafag0861K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date Of 30-07-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 36A

place of each activity, details of beneficiaries, how they were identified, etc. along with the supporting credible evidence. In absence of any such tangible material in respect of details and proof of activities being carried out, it is not possible to ascertain as to whether the activities are charitable

Narayana Rao Sujatha, Chamarajanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 803/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234Section 250Section 69A

reasons amounted to merely reasons to suspect, on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. c. That there is no tangible material available with the learned assessing officer to substantiate that there is escapement of income in the hands of appellant on the facts and circumstances

Sudhir Bansal, Bhilai, Durg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.98/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sudhir Bansal 8, Civic Centre, Bhilai, Dist. Durg-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Adbpb3234H

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148(2)

information from DIT (Investigation) that assessee had received accommodation entry but and there was no independent application of mind by Assessing Officer to tangible material and reasons failed to demonstrate link between tangible material and formation of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, reassessment was not justified ... provision is the formation of belief by the AO that income has escaped assessment. The reasons so recorded have to be based on some tangible material and that should be evident from reading the reasons. It cannot be supplied subsequently either during the proceedings when objections to the reopening